Dan Rather

[once a runner]

I'm sure there are many here who are glad to see Dan Rather retiring. Rather and Brokaw in the same year, can Peter Jennings be far behind?

I saw a line in a recent Dave Barry column that I'm sure many of you will find amusing. "Dan Rather is a fine a journalist and a credit to his home planet." (for once I probably won't get a disagreement!!)

[LionPride]

It's only about 20 years too late.

[foghorn]

He was like an athlete or coach that's stayed too long. Neocons can cheer all they want -- we need a world with people like Dan Rather in it, flawed as they might be. The fact that his excesses caused his own demise (I'm sure he was given an ultimatum and a chance to leave with dignity) should be a warning to not only the liberal media but everyone in that business. There are a few conservative newspeople that are pretty full of themselves right now given the W. victory. Things can turn around quite quickly especially when hubris is involved. Even though he survived his little scandal this fall, O'Reilly is less strident. That might change, though...

From a historical perspective, the passing of Brokaw next month and Rather in a couple months is every important. I'm sure it's safe to say network news anchors will never again be as powerful because of the balkanization of the news media -- radio, cable TV, the internet...

[CRLionDawg]

Honestly, I dont think the major news anchors have been as powerful since the advent of cable. From the late 80s on the CNNs, MSNBCs, and FOXs have spread the way we receive news into various venues. No longer do we sit in front of the TV waiting with anxiety to hear what Dan or Tom is going to tell us. More than likely we already know what they are going to say.

[LionPride]

[quote="foghorn";p="74533"]He was like an athlete or coach that's stayed too long. Neocons can cheer all they want -- we need a world with people like Dan Rather in it, flawed as they might be[/quote]

Why do we need more people like Rather? Why do we need more journalist that do everything they can to sway public opinion to fit their own political views. Journalistic views are supposed to be independent, but that doesn't happen with NBC, CBS, and ABC.

The problem is that before cable & satellite, all we had was the "Big 3". Those 3 would only show what fell into their political beliefs, and that's what the nation saw and believed. The conservative point of view was not put out there. You all blame Fox News of having a conservative spin. But, most of those shows on Fox allow both the liberal and conservative side to be talked about, and because the conservative side is out there in contrast to the liberal side, they get tagged.

I guarantee you that Rather would not have ran a story on a memo he received that was damaging to Kerry 50 days before an election. Thankfully, there's enough cable coverage out there now that enough follow up was done to show that memo was fraudulant. 20 years ago, that memo would've been gospel and Kerry would've won the election because of it.

Why on earth would you want more of the same? Is that the only way Democrats can win now?

[southpaw]

Commies in America and around the world will be weeping in the streets! One of their icons has been disposed! Saddam has one less stalwart ally in the American Media. No more Ratherisms!

Looks to me that the "Memogate" investigation will be scathing towards Rather and Mapes and CBS is saving face by removing Rather before the report comes out.

[CRLionDawg]

All I am saying is that with Rather or without Rather we are receiving more raw news. More events are reported as they happen, leaving interpretation and filtering up to us the listener. The Rathers of the world will have shorter shelf lives and are truly less significant in influencing our thought patterns than they were 20 years ago.

[foghorn]

It's all black and white with you guys, isn't it? All the time.

[LionPride]

[quote="foghorn";p="74611"]It's all black and white with you guys, isn't it? All the time.[/quote]

foggy - it doesn't get any more black and white than this question I'm about to ask you. And answer it honestly.

Would Dan Rather have ran a negative story about John Kerry 50 days before the election?

[foghorn]

How could I possibly know that? Hypothetically I'd say yes because he couldn't get away with not running it though it would carry a certain slant. My contention is that Rather's flaw as a journalist wasn't so much a precise political agenda but a growing megalomania concerning in his position.

And Southpaw, did you forget the amazing reporting he did during the Afganistan War in the 80s? Those Commies actuially had a bounty on his head.

My point is that for much of his career Dan Rather was a very important newsman. As a working journalist he went after the tough stories and had an incredible sense of history. Examine his early career and you'll see that. ( Oh, right, he gave that Republican icon Nixon some grief. Well, that made Rather a hero to a lot of people when you were probably still in diapers. To be honest, I wasn't one of them, though I admired his courage and wit.) Whether it was Nam, Nixon, the war in the Middle East, the cultural Revolution in China, the war in Afganistan, etc etc etc, he was there, reporting, interpreting, and, yes, grandstanding. But to dismiss him out of hand is wrong. I know some of those rabid dogs you guys follow hated him and that he epitomized the Great Satan of the Liberal Media.